WI: Louis II of Bohemia and Hungary has a posthumous child with Mary of Austria

With that being said, nothing really stops the nobility from trying to elect anyway. Given though, that even IOTL the floor was mopped with Szapolyai quite fast(, atleast until the Turks got involved), I don't think he could fair much better ITTL, when there's an unquestionable rightful heir to the throne.
Actually thats quite an interesting question: When did the Kingdom of Hungary become an elective monarchy?
Because I know when it changed back to a hereditary monarchy (1687), I know that before that it was nominally an elective monarchy though in reality the heir of the actual Habsburg ruler was always elected. However in the middle ages I think the kingdom was a hereditary monarchy. So when did it switch to elective?
 
From what I have read and I could be wrong but Louis may have acknowledged János Wass, but he did not officially declare him legitimate which is why János lived his life out in Pozsony (Bratislava). If he had though that could throw another claimant in to the mix - goodness this throne is getting more crowded than the London underground at rush hour...

If Louis had form for siring illegitimate 'children' then I'm thinking Zapolya could just as easily say - this child is just another bastard son of Louis and his supporters, who probably couldn't care less whether it was true or not, are more than happy to agree.

I agree with you about the division of the Jagiellon holdings. I can see that Ferdinand would be content with a regency in Bohemia as it would certainly be an easier route to the Hungarian Throne than having to rely on the erstwhile Hungarian Nobility. He would avoid conflict with Zapolya and he could effectively claim the kingdom for the Habsburgs (can't see them let it go once they have possession). In OTL Ferdinand was also elected King and controlled the western area of Hungary whilst Zapolya controlled the other two thirds, but would Ferdinand's acceptance of the regency in Bohemia come at the price of losing control of his Hungarian territory in which case as you have pointed out Zapolya's authority would then extend to the whole country. That arrangement would certainly benefit Süleyman as Ferdinand's de facto buffer zone would not exist putting Ottoman troops at the Habsburg's doorstep.

As I mentioned before Süleyman's support of János Zapolya could come with conditions attached for instance - János would have to ensure that Louis' son is protected. On the other hand now you've raised the prospect of a Habsburg regency in Bohemia what is there to stop Mary taking her son and fleeing to the safety of either Austria or Bohemia. Her family would be more than happy with that idea as they would have a 2-4-1 a legitimate heir to the Bohemian throne thus ensuring their complete dominance over the area and to borrow a well worn phrase "an oven ready" heir to the Hungarian throne and if they oust Zapolya, and by extension defeat the Ottomans, Hungary is ripe for the taking.
Ferdinand would NEVER tolerated slanders about HIS OWN SISTER and would have nothing to gain from it and Zapolya can do nothing to undermine the legitimacy of a child born by Queen Mary. Recognized mean acknowledged as his own not legitimized (and explain to me why a young King, married not by long with the sister of his powerful neighbors would EVER do something so stupid who will undermine the succession and make angry his brothers-in-law, when he can hope in a legitimate son).
I was just saying who with Queen Mary’s pregnancy already know BEFORE her husband’s death AND Louis‘ having fathered an illegitimate son Zapolya has no way to deny who that child WAS Louis’ legitimate heir. And being regent and being ruler of a Kingdom are two well different things and you can be sure who Ferdinand, brother of Queen Mother Mary and husband of Anne, heiress presumptive of the child King, will have much less checks on his regency in Bohemia than the ones who Zapolya will have in Hungary and if the latter tried to usurp the crown from the young King, then Ferdinand will happily invade Hungary with his army in name of his nephew for removing the regent/usurper.
 
Actually thats quite an interesting question: When did the Kingdom of Hungary become an elective monarchy?
Because I know when it changed back to a hereditary monarchy (1687), I know that before that it was nominally an elective monarchy though in reality the heir of the actual Habsburg ruler was always elected. However in the middle ages I think the kingdom was a hereditary monarchy. So when did it switch to elective?
The switch more or less happened when the Árpád dynasty died out with Andrew III, but the Hungarian succession rules were never set in stone. Even then though, the elections were more about electing a new ruling dynasty, not just the actual candidate. I think the election being centered solely around the individual can be attributed to Vladislaus I's election.
 
@isabella

We can add killing Zapolya to Ferdinand's list of things to do.

In OTL both Zapolya and Ferdinand were elected Kings. In ATL if Ferdinand is palmed off with a regency then Zapolya has a free run at the Throne, but he needs to overcome the problem that the little bundle of Jageillon joy has made by being born. His choice is either kill the child or and more likely question the child's legitimacy. Whether the diaper king is legitimate or not is not really the thing to concentrate on. Zapolya can imply it be so and his supporters would use it to push for an election and bob's your uncle Zapolya becomes king. Based on what you have said that would be the logical thing for Zapolya to do. Zapolya has the Sultan's protection so I'm not sure that Ferdinand would be so reckless as to provoke conflict with the Ottomans when they have suzerainty over Hungary.

A Regent is Monarch in all but name. Ferdinand does not need to worry if Mary escapes to Bohemia. He would have the infant in his custody and as I say he would have a bona fide claimant to the Throne of Hungary and Bohemia. Ferdinand will simply acquire the Kingdom of Bohemia - he is Habsburg - that is what his family does.

I was thinking about this this morning on my way to work. What would the Jageillon Family do? Would they want to intervene after all the child is of their blood. What if Mary goes to Bohemia for safety and they see that as a prime opportunity to launch a smash and grab raid on Ferdinand in an effort to take the young King?
 
@isabella

We can add killing Zapolya to Ferdinand's list of things to do.

In OTL both Zapolya and Ferdinand were elected Kings. In ATL if Ferdinand is palmed off with a regency then Zapolya has a free run at the Throne, but he needs to overcome the problem that the little bundle of Jageillon joy has made by being born. His choice is either kill the child or and more likely question the child's legitimacy. Whether the diaper king is legitimate or not is not really the thing to concentrate on. Zapolya can imply it be so and his supporters would use it to push for an election and bob's your uncle Zapolya becomes king. Based on what you have said that would be the logical thing for Zapolya to do. Zapolya has the Sultan's protection so I'm not sure that Ferdinand would be so reckless as to provoke conflict with the Ottomans when they have suzerainty over Hungary.

A Regent is Monarch in all but name. Ferdinand does not need to worry if Mary escapes to Bohemia. He would have the infant in his custody and as I say he would have a bona fide claimant to the Throne of Hungary and Bohemia. Ferdinand will simply acquire the Kingdom of Bohemia - he is Habsburg - that is what his family does.

I was thinking about this this morning on my way to work. What would the Jageillon Family do? Would they want to intervene after all the child is of their blood. What if Mary goes to Bohemia for safety and they see that as a prime opportunity to launch a smash and grab raid on Ferdinand in an effort to take the young King?
Zapolya had too many enemies for being able to get more than a regency for in Hungary with a living legitimate son of Louis. Ferdinand would NEVER try to steal the Crown of Bohemia or Hungary from his nephew... He was always loyal to his family. If Zapolya try to slander Queen Mary’s reputation a) he would not be believed much b) would likely lose supporters and acquire much more enemies than OTL (and lose any support from his Polish former brother-in-law). If Zapolya try to kill the infant King well how’s lieve and power are over forever, and that independently from the success of his tentative).
Sigismund I of Poland is only the great uncle of the young King while Ferdinand is twice his uncle so he can not claim custody of the King or any kind of regency.
 
The election of Vladislaus was an illegal act of the nobility. Legally, the succession of the ruling family's direct line was always garantueed. The right to elect a king was present only, when the late king had no son.
From a certain point of view the nobility was just exercising their rights of electing someone capable of defending their interests, the Luxemburg-Habsburg partisans didn't agree with that obviously, it doesn't matter anyway, the succession wouldn't happen in a vacuum, the Turks are there, the King and much of the nobility got offed and the southern defense is gone, a barely 1 day old kid can't lead a country in such state and there are many who want to take charge (even if "temporarily"). "Legitimacy" is good and all, but in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period those can really get excused if the circumstances (and interests) arises.
I mentioned Ladislaus, but Matthias also highlights the situation, there were many, many more "legitimate" pretenders than him (the Poles and the Saxons), but the 15 years civil war and feudal division, the Turks and Austrian meddling lead the nobility to elect a native noble of no royal pedigree to appease the Hungarian estates.
Do we know what the Hungarian succession "rules" were at this time? I've assumed elective in the absence of male heirs to the previous, and where male heirs exist a more selective process among them with direct heirs being more confirmatory?
There was none really, the Diet theoretically decided who, but the relation between Royal power and the Diet depended on the figure of the King and the magnates and who actually called the shots oscillated. During the Arpads, of course, only those of relationship with the royal house were elected, after they died out it became customary to elect those with marital relations to the former kings (the Angevins, Luxemburgs and Habsburgs), however Mathias broke the system (and opened a can of worms) since he had no relationship whatsoever with the Hungarian royalty, establishing a precedent that any Hungarian grandee could have a shot for the crown.
Hungary wouldn't have clear succession laws until Ferdinand III in the 1600s.
 
Zapolya had too many enemies for being able to get more than a regency for in Hungary with a living legitimate son of Louis. Ferdinand would NEVER try to steal the Crown of Bohemia or Hungary from his nephew... He was always loyal to his family. If Zapolya try to slander Queen Mary’s reputation a) he would not be believed much b) would likely lose supporters and acquire much more enemies than OTL (and lose any support from his Polish former brother-in-law). If Zapolya try to kill the infant King well how’s lieve and power are over forever, and that independently from the success of his tentative).
Sigismund I of Poland is only the great uncle of the young King while Ferdinand is twice his uncle so he can not claim custody of the King or any kind of regency.
Ferdinand does not need to steal the crown from his nephew he just needs to ensure that the kid can keep it.

As for Zapolya if he wants to become King of Hungary then he will have to do something about the boy. The illegitimacy rumour seems to be the safest route. I'm not saying that it ends well for Zapolya remember he is simply the Sultan's puppet and I doubt the Ottomans would care if he was alive or not as long as they get Hungary.
 
The first part of that is not strictly true, as you've been advised before, and the latter part the king could do already regardless of having sons (see Edward III's entail).

Do we know what the Hungarian succession "rules" were at this time? I've assumed elective in the absence of male heirs to the previous, and where male heirs exist a more selective process among them with direct heirs being more confirmatory?
At the risk of coming under attack again I am only going to say this once.

The line of succession pre-1707 was determined by the law of primogeniture i.e. the King needed a son. If the King did not have a son or no heirs apparent or heirs presumptive then he could determine the line of succession through his will and/or an Act of Parliament.

Edward III is a prime example of the law of primogeniture

Edward III (grandfather) >> Edward Woodstock, The Black Prince (eldest son of Edward III) >> Richard II (eldest son of Edward Woodstock)

Henry VIII is a prime example of determining the line of succession if there are no male heirs

Henry VIII (father) >> Mary I (eldest daughter and heir presumptive) >> First Succession Act declared Mary I a bastard >> Elizabeth I (second daughter and heir presumptive) >> Second Succession Act Mary I and Elizabeth I declared bastards and removed from the line of succession >> no heirs apparent or heirs presumptive (Henry to determine line of succession) >> Edward VI (eldest son and heir apparent) >> Third Succession Act declares Mary I and Elizabeth I legitimate (returned to line of succession, but behind their half brother.)

That's how it worked. I don't know what else to say except please let's not go over this yet again I had enough of you lot on the other thread. It wasn't pleasant experience and I am not in any way wanting a repeat of that.
 
The switch more or less happened when the Árpád dynasty died out with Andrew III, but the Hungarian succession rules were never set in stone. Even then though, the elections were more about electing a new ruling dynasty, not just the actual candidate. I think the election being centered solely around the individual can be attributed to Vladislaus I's election.
I did a bit of reading and i found that the situation was even more complicated than I thought:
1. In the Árpád era there were a lot of fighting for the throne partly because there was no law for succession. There was a tradition of "hereditary election" (sorry I have no idea how to correctly translate the term). The important part was that the ruler always had to come from the Árpád dynasty as long as there were any male Árpáds. But aside from that it was basically the strongest claimant getting the throne.

2. This continued more or less after the extinction of the Árpád dynasty with the addition of that if the male descendants of the first king of the new dynasty go extict the nobility can choose a new dynasty again. Thats why according to this after Ladislaus posthumus's death the Habsburg branch that had a legal claim to the throne of Hungary went extinct. That another branch of the house of Habsburg was elected later is another question.
So:
Sigismund was elected as king died without male heir.
Albert was elected as king had Ladislaus Posthumus.
Vladislaus I was elected - breaking the succession tradition of always choosing from the dynasty - but after his death his election was declared invalid and unlawful by the hungarian nobility who elected him in the first place. (reason for his election was political reality). Because of this he was not accpeted as dynasty founder.
Mathias was elected and died without male heir.
Vladislaus II was elected and had Louis II as an heir.
Louis II again died without an heir.
Than part of the nobility elected Ferdinand I and another part of the nobility elected John Zápolya.

There were various agreements between former hungarian kings that had promised for this situation the throne for the Habsburgs however these agreements were never made to law by the hungarian pairlaiment so they were not binding when electing a sucessor after a dynasty went extinct.

Its important to note that from the Habsburgs only the male descendants of Ferdinand I had right to the throne of Hungary after his 1527 election and in theory the hungarian pairlaiment could have choosen among them independently from who ruled in Vienna. This sucession tradition was codified as law in 1547. The other important part of this is that the spanish Hansburg had no right to the hungarian throne according to hungarian sucession laws.

What happened in 1687 when the nobility gave up its right to elect the king it gave up this right. From than on the theoretical possibility to elect as a king of Hungary a different male descendant of Ferdinand I than the one ruling in Vienna was eliminated.
 
Last edited:
@Tibi088

That was rather confusing to read at this time, but I think I get the gist of it.

Louis II in this alternate timeline has a child, but the child cannot take the throne for some reason how would that affect things? Would the son's inability to exercise his right be the equivalent of that bloodline becoming extinct and therefore trigger the election process or do Hungarian 'succession rules' (I don't know how else to refer to the complicated mess you have just described) make allowances for a Regent...
 
Apologies for the minor derail.
At the risk of coming under attack again I am only going to say this once.
Disagreeing with someone because they are incorrect is not an attack. Even if I wanted to there are rules against attacking people on this site.
That's how it worked. I don't know what else to say except please let's not go over this yet again I had enough of you lot on the other thread. It wasn't pleasant experience and I am not in any way wanting a repeat of that.
There was never an explicit ban against female succession in the English Royal Succession unless one counts Edward III's brief entail on agnatic succession.
The succession tended to act according to male preference succession when entails were not made.
Perhaps you'd care to show where exactly a sole daughter of a monarch was successfully displaced in favour of her nonfraternal male relative? That would be proof of your claim of male only succession (as opposed to male preference). If it helps I wrote a post in the thread where you made the claim showing who succeeded who and why right up to Henry VII.
 
@Tibi088

That was rather confusing to read at this time, but I think I get the gist of it.

Louis II in this alternate timeline has a child, but the child cannot take the throne for some reason how would that affect things? Would the son's inability to exercise his right be the equivalent of that bloodline becoming extinct and therefore trigger the election process or do Hungarian 'succession rules' (I don't know how else to refer to the complicated mess you have just described) make allowances for a Regent...
Sorry I wrote that pretty late and also struggle to translate it to english.
The gist is that according to the sucession law as long as there is a male descendant alive of the first hungarian ruler of the dynasty he is the legal heir. But only this dynasty founders descendants count - his siblings, cousins and other relatives and their descendants have no right whatsoever to the hungarian throne whatever happens. Te nobles did not have to choose the firstborn son of the ruler. They could go with the second son. Or the brother of the ruler as long as the ruler is not the founder of the dynasty (as his brothers have no right to the throne). Females were completly disregarded - if the male line went extinct the nobles were free to choose whoever they wanted to start a new dynasty - it was irrelevant if the new king had married any female relatives of the former dynasty.

So if Luis II has a son he is the legal heir. If Louis II had a brother the nobles could choose him as well. Basically as long as any male descendant of Vladislaus II are alive the king of Hungary must be chosen from them.

However there is an example in a very similar situation of the nobility electing Vladislaus I as king - they had no right to and later (after his death) admitted that. The reason was they believed they needed a grown man to lead the defense of the country against the ottomans. The situation is similar. The question is there any plausible candidate - preferably a foreign ruler - who the hungarian nobility might decide is better suited to help and fight the Ottomans than the Habsburgs?
 
Last edited:
Sorry I wrote that pretty late and also struggle to translate it to english.
The gist is that according to the sucession law as long as there is a male descendant alive of the first hungarian ruler of the dynasty he is the legal heir. But only this dynasty founders descendants count - his siblings, cousins and other relatives and their descendants have no right whatsoever to the hungarian throne whatever happens. Te nobles did not have to choose the firstborn son of the ruler. They could go with the second son. Or the brother of the ruler as long as the ruler is not the founder of the dynasty (as his brothers have no right to the throne). Females were completly disregarded - if the male line went extinct the nobles were free to choose whoever they wanted to start a new dynasty - it was irrelevant if the new king had married any female relatives of the former dynasty.

So if Luis II has a son he is the legal heir. If Louis II had a brother the nobles could choose him as well. Basically as long as any male descendant of Vladislaus II are alive the king of Hungary must be chosen from them.

However there is an example in a very similar situation of the nobility electing Vladislaus I as king - they had no right to and later (after his death) admitted that. The reason was they believed they needed a grown man to lead the defense of the country against the ottomans. The situation is similar. The question is there any plausible candidate - preferably a foreign ruler - who the hungarian nobility might decide is better suited to help and fight the Ottomans than the Habsburgs?

Did it work like this, though? Charles I Robert became king because he was female-line descendant of Stephen V and he explicitly stated so by a papal bull decreeing him the rightful king and his opponents usurpers. Also, cousins of Charles I did have a right to throne of Hungary - Charles II of Durazzo (not descended from Charles I Robert), but from his paternal uncles did take the throne as a last male Angevin standing (no one elected him as a founder of dynasty) and his son Ladislaus likewise claimed the throne on this basis. Also, it was Mary who was Queen Regnant for a first 4 years since Louis's death not Sigismund, and Elisabeth of Bosnia tried to replace Sigismund with Louis d'Orleans or even Ladislaus of Naples, so something needs to be wrong with your statement. Also, after Mary's death, her sister was considered fit to inherit, there was even stillborn uprising in 1395 in her favor, put down by archbishop Kanizsai (who later switched to Jogaila's camp, but Jogaila wasn't interested in Hungarian throne anymore after death of his first wife), and she didn't become a Queen Regnant of Hungary because of her own reluctance (at first) and because of her untimely death (had she lived into 1400s, Sigismund won't keep Hungary).
 
Did it work like this, though? Charles I Robert became king because he was female-line descendant of Stephen V and he explicitly stated so by a papal bull decreeing him the rightful king and his opponents usurpers. Also, cousins of Charles I did have a right to throne of Hungary - Charles II of Durazzo (not descended from Charles I Robert), but from his paternal uncles did take the throne as a last male Angevin standing (no one elected him as a founder of dynasty) and his son Ladislaus likewise claimed the throne on this basis. Also, it was Mary who was Queen Regnant for a first 4 years since Louis's death not Sigismund, and Elisabeth of Bosnia tried to replace Sigismund with Louis d'Orleans or even Ladislaus of Naples, so something needs to be wrong with your statement. Also, after Mary's death, her sister was considered fit to inherit, there was even stillborn uprising in 1395 in her favor, put down by archbishop Kanizsai (who later switched to Jogaila's camp, but Jogaila wasn't interested in Hungarian throne anymore after death of his first wife), and she didn't become a Queen Regnant of Hungary because of her own reluctance (at first) and because of her untimely death (had she lived into 1400s, Sigismund won't keep Hungary).
Charles I: He was elected as king in 1308 though him being a candidate was partly because he was a female-line descendant.

For Charles II and his son you are right - though those were very turbulent times. Also keep in mind that as I mentioned the order of sucession only became written law in 1547 - in the way I descibed. Before that the situation was less settled. Also lets not forget that the hungarian law of sucession is one thing and if realities on the ground are too different than it can and has been ignored. Like with the already mentioned Ladislaus I.
 
Charles I: He was elected as king in 1308 though him being a candidate was partly because he was a female-line descendant.

For Charles II and his son you are right - though those were very turbulent times. Also keep in mind that as I mentioned the order of sucession only became written law in 1547 - in the way I descibed. Before that the situation was less settled. Also lets not forget that the hungarian law of sucession is one thing and if realities on the ground are too different than it can and has been ignored. Like with the already mentioned Ladislaus I.
Describing Charles I as being "elected" is a rather generous statement, he was acclaimed king because no one else was allowed to run in this "election" and he treated supporters of Wenceslaus of Bohemia/Otto of Bavaria rather harshly.


Turbulent times - yes, but those we're talking about would be even more turbulent than Charles's II were. 1547 is 20 years after both ATL and OTL Louis's II death, so I'm not sure if this law would be applicable ITTL. Although I'm on the board that Louis's son would have his rights recognized, simply because it is a good pawn for either Zapolya or Ferdinand and neither of them would be interested in removing Jagiellon.
 
Sorry I wrote that pretty late and also struggle to translate it to english.
The gist is that according to the sucession law as long as there is a male descendant alive of the first hungarian ruler of the dynasty he is the legal heir. But only this dynasty founders descendants count - his siblings, cousins and other relatives and their descendants have no right whatsoever to the hungarian throne whatever happens. Te nobles did not have to choose the firstborn son of the ruler. They could go with the second son. Or the brother of the ruler as long as the ruler is not the founder of the dynasty (as his brothers have no right to the throne). Females were completly disregarded - if the male line went extinct the nobles were free to choose whoever they wanted to start a new dynasty - it was irrelevant if the new king had married any female relatives of the former dynasty.

So if Luis II has a son he is the legal heir. If Louis II had a brother the nobles could choose him as well. Basically as long as any male descendant of Vladislaus II are alive the king of Hungary must be chosen from them.

However there is an example in a very similar situation of the nobility electing Vladislaus I as king - they had no right to and later (after his death) admitted that. The reason was they believed they needed a grown man to lead the defense of the country against the ottomans. The situation is similar. The question is there any plausible candidate - preferably a foreign ruler - who the hungarian nobility might decide is better suited to help and fight the Ottomans than the Habsburgs?
No need to apologise your English is very good. It's what you were explaining that was a bit complicated. So it seems without the boy the Nobility would be free to elect whomever they want...
 
Describing Charles I as being "elected" is a rather generous statement, he was acclaimed king because no one else was allowed to run in this "election" and he treated supporters of Wenceslaus of Bohemia/Otto of Bavaria rather harshly.


Turbulent times - yes, but those we're talking about would be even more turbulent than Charles's II were. 1547 is 20 years after both ATL and OTL Louis's II death, so I'm not sure if this law would be applicable ITTL. Although I'm on the board that Louis's son would have his rights recognized, simply because it is a good pawn for either Zapolya or Ferdinand and neither of them would be interested in removing Jagiellon.
To me it seems that this child benefits Ferdinand more than Zápolya. I can't see what Zápolya would gain from Louis son being around. He would have to be elected which was illegal (not that that seems to have mattered) and having said that I've just had a thought perhaps the Nobility would elect him on the condition that when Louis child comes of age he hands the throne over to its rightful heir (I'm thinking how likely is that...)
 
Last edited:
To me it seems that this child benefits Ferdinand more than Zápolya. I can't see what Zápolya would gain from Louis son being around. He would have to be elected which was illegal (not that that seems to have mattered) and having said that I've just had a thought perhaps the Nobility would elect him on the condition that when Louis child comes of age he hands the throne over to its rightful heir (I'm thinking how likely is that...)
Well, not really... Zápolya also cab very well benefit a lot from said child as NOW with the infant boy as King he need ONLY to get a deal with Mary, Ferdinand and Anne for the getting the regency of Hungary (pretty likely to get if IF he do the interests of little Louis as Ferdinand between ruling his Austria, being regent in Bohemia and being the Imperial vicar of his brother had more than enough work to do and NOT being responsible of the first line of defense against Ottomans would be good for him. If Zapolya throw his lot with the infidels well he will he naturally a sworn enemy of Vienna and NOT allowed to take the regency) so rule the land pretty much uncontested for 15 years in name of Louis III instead of fighting against Ferdinand for the election as King. Plus he would have the Habsburg as allies instead of enemies...
Remember who Zapolya had a lot of internal enemies other than supporters and while he benefited a lot from Mohac’s death, not having to deal with the whole nobility and competing with Ferdinand for being elected as King would gave him as easier path to power so he also would likely benefit more from a regency than being King as OTL
 
Last edited:
To me it seems that this child benefits Ferdinand more than Zápolya. I can't see what Zápolya would gain from Louis son being around. He would have to be elected which was illegal (not that that seems to have mattered) and having said that I've just had a thought perhaps the Nobility would elect him on the condition that when Louis child comes of age he hands the throne over to its rightful heir (I'm thinking how likely is that...)
He'd be king de facto without having to bother with Ferdinand's supporters, that's a lot to gain for someone like Zapolya, whose position was no way stable and also he was considered lowborn compared to other Hungarian magnates, sometimes with descent from tribal chieftains from pre-Arpad times (like Bathoris, who were cadet branch of Abas).
 
He'd be king de facto without having to bother with Ferdinand's supporters, that's a lot to gain for someone like Zapolya, whose position was no way stable and also he was considered lowborn compared to other Hungarian magnates, sometimes with descent from tribal chieftains from pre-Arpad times (like Bathoris, who were cadet branch of Abas).
If Ferdinand has the child then that could be an issue for Zápolya. From the explanation of how Hungarian succession laws work or not work - the 'if it's too difficult sweep it under the carpet and elected who we want' approach worked because everyone ignored the reality of the situation. What if this time Ferdinand's allies in the Hungarian Nobility challenge the election claiming that Zápolya could not be King as Louis had an heir... Is that something that would be possible or is it simply the case that the Nobility have spoken and so it be done.
 
Top